[Equest-users] WSHP Capacity Greater Than 90.1 Table 6.8.1

Tue Sep 18 10:02:51 PDT 2018

Hi David:
Yes, for LEED, no problem because it will be a system type 6, VAV with FPB and electric heat.  I was inquiring regarding the utility program here in CT, which requires that the baseline systems be of the same type (WSHP) of the proposed systems using 90.1 minimum equipment efficiencies.

Obviously they will make that decision, I was just curious on what everyone had to say if the baseline system capacity exceeded tables 6.8.1.
Thank you, Paul Diglio
87 Fairmont Avenue 
New Haven, CT 06513 

      From: David Eldridge <DEldridge at grummanbutkus.com>
 To: Nicholas Caton <Nicholas.Caton at schneider-electric.com>; "equest-users at onebuilding.org" <equest-users at onebuilding.org>; Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net> 
 Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 12:11 PM
 Subject: Re: [Equest-users] WSHP Capacity Greater Than 90.1 Table 6.8.1

#yiv1916182878 #yiv1916182878 -- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv1916182878 What's the system mapping for the building type and size? The baseline may not even have WSHP, or the mapping should yield a smaller system selection that does apply somewhere in the 6.8 tables.
David
From: Equest-users <equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org> on behalf of Paul Diglio via Equest-users <equest-users at lists.onebuilding.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 10:51:15 AM
To: Nicholas Caton; equest-users at onebuilding.org
Subject: Re: [Equest-users] WSHP Capacity Greater Than 90.1 Table 6.8.1 Nick:
Thanks for the information.  These WSHP are AAON SA-065-S-C units.  I am waiting for the designer to send me the performance information.

So if there is no efficiency rating for this size unit, should the baseline be modeled with the same efficiency as the proposed model?
Regards, Paul Diglio
87 Fairmont Avenue 
New Haven, CT 06513 

From: Nicholas Caton <Nicholas.Caton at schneider-electric.com>
To: Paul Diglio <paul.diglio at sbcglobal.net>; "equest-users at onebuilding.org" <equest-users at onebuilding.org>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 1:23 PM
Subject: RE: [Equest-users] WSHP Capacity Greater Than 90.1 Table 6.8.1

#yiv1916182878 #yiv1916182878 --#yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049 #yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049 -- filtered #yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049 {font-family:Helvetica;}#yiv1916182878 filtered #yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049 {}#yiv1916182878 filtered #yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049 {}#yiv1916182878 filtered #yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049 {font-family:Calibri;}#yiv1916182878 filtered #yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049 {}#yiv1916182878 #yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049 #yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049 p.yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049MsoNormal, #yiv1916182878 #yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049 li.yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049MsoNormal, #yiv1916182878 #yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049 div.yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv1916182878 #yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049 a:x_link, #yiv1916182878 #yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049 span.yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1916182878 #yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049 a:x_visited, #yiv1916182878 #yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049 span.yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1916182878 #yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049 p.yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049msonormal0, #yiv1916182878 #yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049 li.yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049msonormal0, #yiv1916182878 #yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049 div.yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049msonormal0 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv1916182878 #yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049 span.yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049EmailStyle19 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv1916182878 #yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049 .yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv1916182878 filtered #yiv1916182878x_yiv7758473049 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv1916182878 I’d fall back to 6.4.1.1 under the mandatory provisions for the prescriptive compliance path – that’s the section citing the 6.8 series tables for the purpose of establishing prescriptive compliance.  As I’m reading/interpreting, equipment that is not listed categorically within the 6.8-series tables by extension does not need to achieve any minimum performance rating.  There is however some complementary text there you’ll want to review carefully to see if anything applies to your situation. One extra thought:  Is it possible you’re dealing with a 60-ton WSHPpackage, comprised of a combination of smaller heatpumps?  In that scenario it may be easier using the individual heatpump capacity ratings to find something that fits the prescriptive mold, so to speak. ~NickNick Caton, P.E., BEMP
|   Senior Energy Engineer
  Regional Energy Engineering Manager  Energy and Sustainability Services
  Schneider Electric | D  913.564.6361
M  785.410.3317
F  913.564.6380
E  nicholas.caton at schneider-electric.com | 15200 Santa Fe Trail Drive
Suite 204
Lenexa, KS 66219
United States |
|  |

  From: Equest-users <equest-users-bounces at lists.onebuilding.org>On Behalf Of Paul Diglio via Equest-users
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 6:57 AM
To: equest-users at onebuilding.org
Subject: [Equest-users] WSHP Capacity Greater Than 90.1 Table 6.8.1 [External email: Use caution with links and attachments] Hi All: I am looking at a project based on 90.1-2010.  The capacity of the WSHPs are 60 tons.  90.1-2010 Table 6.8.1B does not list the minimum efficiency of WSHP over 135,000 bBtu/Hr.

Any ideas on how to select the minimum efficiency of a similar system for the baseline?

Thank you, Paul Diglio
87 Fairmont Avenue 
New Haven, CT 06513 

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
______________________________________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20180918/0926eacf/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 255 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20180918/0926eacf/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8477 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.onebuilding.org/pipermail/equest-users-onebuilding.org/attachments/20180918/0926eacf/attachment-0001.png>